5 ms·

No, it's the other way around: if you share your personal experience with me, I'll respect you more than I would if you instead shared facts. At least, that's t

No, it's the other way around: if you share your personal experience with me, I'll respect you more than I would if you instead shared facts. At least, that's the authors' claim. But what it means to "share facts" in these studies is not what you might anticipate. In Study 5, for example, participants speak with someone who disagrees with them about gun control. In the article, we're told that these interlocutors "offered either personal experiences or shared factual knowledge to support that stance." But the Supporting Information (which is separate from the article) shows what the interlocutors really said: > Well, I do think you’re wrong about gun policy. I am [for/against] gun control, and I feel pretty strongly about that. I don’t know how you can call yourself an American if you don’t think that guns [hurt people and communities/keep our communities safe]. I believe this because I have read many books and governmental reports on gun policy, so my factual knowledge has really made me feel strongly about this. [1] The interlocutor claims to be basing his views on "factual knowledge," but no actual facts are offered. To me, this seems a bad way to study the effects of fact-giving in discussions. If you want to do that, you should...study discussions in which facts are given. Study 4 is similar in this respect. Then again, in the authors' defense, there's more to the article than these two studies. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2021/01/25/2008389118.DCSupplemental/pnas.2008389118.sapp.pdf#page=6 https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2021/01/25/200838911...

phkahler 6y ago
Narcissism. "I've read many books and governmental reports..." is (presumably) a fact. It's a fact about the person saying it and not about the issue. It's a way to claim "I know what I'm talking about" without evidence. Unfortunately in today's world, you can be well read in any subject and still end up on either side based on what you've read.
- Udik 6y ago
  > It's a fact about the person saying it Which ironically enough, seems to be the definition itself of "personal experience". Notice also how there is emotion thrown in: "it made me feel strongly about". How is this supposed to be an argument?
  - xnyan 6y ago
    > How is this supposed to be an argument? I agree, if heard that kind of argument then I would think it was ridiculous and narcissistic. My personal experience is that people often argue in this way, and if I’m being honest if I don’t catch myself than I too am tempted to argue this way. I think there’s a few factors going on, foremost perhaps an aspect of normal human psychology is that when humans process information and from that information come to a observation or conclusion, we tend to remember the conclusion we came to and not the process of coming to that conclusion. Also, I know that I personally (and also everyone else too I believe) think about myself quite a bit more than anyone else. It’s easy to live in my head and forget that not everyone knows what think I know. So tldr - forgetting stuff and being selfish
- patcon 6y ago
  Do they not control for "trust" that the person has genuine factual knowledge? So your personal doubting due to lack of sources is controlled for, I believe, in their "manipulation checks" on page 1. So people who aren't presented with enough cues to create trust (and even the strongest rationalist has their own thresholds here, e.g. your heart surgeon, a Nobel laureate, etc) would be factored into account. Citation only matters to the listener when trust doesn't exist, esp when "determinations of truthfulness in the universe" isn't even what the researchers care to study -- but rather, how respect develops between the people who receive trusted facts vs trusted experiences :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

phkahler 6y ago

Narcissism. "I've read many books and governmental reports..." is (presumably) a fact. It's a fact about the person saying it and not about the issue. It's a way to claim "I know what I'm talking about" without evidence. Unfortunately in today's world, you can be well read in any subject and still end up on either side based on what you've read.

Udik 6y ago
> It's a fact about the person saying it Which ironically enough, seems to be the definition itself of "personal experience". Notice also how there is emotion thrown in: "it made me feel strongly about". How is this supposed to be an argument?
- xnyan 6y ago
  > How is this supposed to be an argument? I agree, if heard that kind of argument then I would think it was ridiculous and narcissistic. My personal experience is that people often argue in this way, and if I’m being honest if I don’t catch myself than I too am tempted to argue this way. I think there’s a few factors going on, foremost perhaps an aspect of normal human psychology is that when humans process information and from that information come to a observation or conclusion, we tend to remember the conclusion we came to and not the process of coming to that conclusion. Also, I know that I personally (and also everyone else too I believe) think about myself quite a bit more than anyone else. It’s easy to live in my head and forget that not everyone knows what think I know. So tldr - forgetting stuff and being selfish
patcon 6y ago
Do they not control for "trust" that the person has genuine factual knowledge? So your personal doubting due to lack of sources is controlled for, I believe, in their "manipulation checks" on page 1. So people who aren't presented with enough cues to create trust (and even the strongest rationalist has their own thresholds here, e.g. your heart surgeon, a Nobel laureate, etc) would be factored into account. Citation only matters to the listener when trust doesn't exist, esp when "determinations of truthfulness in the universe" isn't even what the researchers care to study -- but rather, how respect develops between the people who receive trusted facts vs trusted experiences :)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]